Most visitors online was 4107 , on 14 Jan 2023
eric the bully
Registered User
This is a Charles Henry Meylan Rattrapante chronograph.
Regards enrico
Regards enrico
Alex_FI
New User
- May 4, 2023
- 4
- 1
- 1
- 50
- Country
-
Thanks!
Thank you Enrico, you are right again.
I think the idea to improve came before 1880 because, although I have seen dozens of his 1880 chronographs, only one with his 1874 system.
In 1888 he patented a split-seconds mechanism, the one found in your watch, based on his 1880 chronograph design.
And now starts a puzzle; was the movement made by Meylan, or Maylan subcontracted someone else to make it for him? The same chronographs are also signed with other names, like Tiffany, Jaques & Marcus, Benedict Brothers (all from New York), Bailey Banks & Biddle, and others. There are at least two retailed by Patek Philippe. Some are unsigned.
In 1876, the Commission of the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, describing watches by H. L. Matile, mentioned that "Mr. Meylan is a resident of New York, but the complicated watches upon his plan are constructed by Mr. Matile, in Switzerland."
Maybe. However, since your watch dates at least 12 years later, we cannot assume that it was made by Matile, whose chronographs from that period remind us of Piguet freres chronographs with typical Nicole's construction of 1862. (see Pocket Chronometer Chronograph by Henri-Louis Matile
Consequently they have nothing to do with the Maylan's construction.
And then there is the mysterious mark of the rampant lion.
Many of Meylan's watches are stamped with it. There are also virtually identical unsigned watches found with the same mark. The mark has not been registered neither in Switzerland nor in the States. There is a trademark C. H. MEYLAN registered both in the Stated and Switzerland but by a company he was a partner in, Mathez & Co., c/o Mathey Bros, who claimed that the mark had been used since 1881.
However, there was a remarkably similar trademark registered by J. J. Badollet Co.
If we flip it
we get the mark found on Meylan's watches.
It is clear that if Meylan used Badollet's mark, even in a flipped mode, it would have constituted an infringement. Meylan was no stranger to using others' ideas without asking (as claimed, for instance, by Audemrs Piguet) However, there was no reason to infringe on Badollet's mark because Meylan was way more well known than Badollet.
A reasonable explanation is that Meylan made a deal with Badollet that the movements made by Badollet for Meylan would be struck with Badollet's mirror-image trademark.
As a part of the story, I should mention a chronograph design quite similar to Meylan's, invented and patented by Paul Sandoz-Barbier in June of 1891.
It is virtually Meylan's system with an addition of a minute register. You may find it interesting that chronographs with minute registers were called minute chronographs (like minute repeaters) in those days.
Many watches with this system were made by Lugrin Company as well as by Merchand & Sandoz, many without a minute register. They resemble Meylan's almost exactly.
For more on Meylan's story, read the article by Ethan Lipsig, who did considerable research on the company.
Philip Poniz
MEYLAN, MATILE, BADOLLET AND CHRONOGRAPHS
Meylan patented an idea for a chronograph design in 1874 and improved it in 1880. The improvement was to change the double clutch wheel into a single one and the returning spring for the activating lever.
I think the idea to improve came before 1880 because, although I have seen dozens of his 1880 chronographs, only one with his 1874 system.
In 1888 he patented a split-seconds mechanism, the one found in your watch, based on his 1880 chronograph design.
And now starts a puzzle; was the movement made by Meylan, or Maylan subcontracted someone else to make it for him? The same chronographs are also signed with other names, like Tiffany, Jaques & Marcus, Benedict Brothers (all from New York), Bailey Banks & Biddle, and others. There are at least two retailed by Patek Philippe. Some are unsigned.
In 1876, the Commission of the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, describing watches by H. L. Matile, mentioned that "Mr. Meylan is a resident of New York, but the complicated watches upon his plan are constructed by Mr. Matile, in Switzerland."
Maybe. However, since your watch dates at least 12 years later, we cannot assume that it was made by Matile, whose chronographs from that period remind us of Piguet freres chronographs with typical Nicole's construction of 1862. (see Pocket Chronometer Chronograph by Henri-Louis Matile
Consequently they have nothing to do with the Maylan's construction.
And then there is the mysterious mark of the rampant lion.
Many of Meylan's watches are stamped with it. There are also virtually identical unsigned watches found with the same mark. The mark has not been registered neither in Switzerland nor in the States. There is a trademark C. H. MEYLAN registered both in the Stated and Switzerland but by a company he was a partner in, Mathez & Co., c/o Mathey Bros, who claimed that the mark had been used since 1881.
However, there was a remarkably similar trademark registered by J. J. Badollet Co.
If we flip it
we get the mark found on Meylan's watches.
It is clear that if Meylan used Badollet's mark, even in a flipped mode, it would have constituted an infringement. Meylan was no stranger to using others' ideas without asking (as claimed, for instance, by Audemrs Piguet) However, there was no reason to infringe on Badollet's mark because Meylan was way more well known than Badollet.
A reasonable explanation is that Meylan made a deal with Badollet that the movements made by Badollet for Meylan would be struck with Badollet's mirror-image trademark.
As a part of the story, I should mention a chronograph design quite similar to Meylan's, invented and patented by Paul Sandoz-Barbier in June of 1891.
It is virtually Meylan's system with an addition of a minute register. You may find it interesting that chronographs with minute registers were called minute chronographs (like minute repeaters) in those days.
Many watches with this system were made by Lugrin Company as well as by Merchand & Sandoz, many without a minute register. They resemble Meylan's almost exactly.
For more on Meylan's story, read the article by Ethan Lipsig, who did considerable research on the company.
Philip Poniz
mosesgodfrey
NAWCC Member
- Aug 30, 2017
- 686
- 583
- 93
- Country
-
- Region
-
Philip Poniz great info & intriguing, too! I would very much like to know more about the two retailed by the other firm you mentioned.
You touched on several Meylan stories and relationships that have yet to be fully told. I
will take a stab at one most relevant to the watch in question.
Until December 9th, 1903, there was no C. H. Meylan watch company: there was only L. & A. Mathey and their successor, Mathey Brothers & Mathez (M.B., M. & Co. from 1888, when Meylan became a junior partner). From the beginning, all was done by & for them. The Brassus factory was wholly owned & bankrolled by—and operated for more than a decade under the name of—Mathey Bros., Mathez, & Co.
Even after 1903, "C H Meylan" remained largely what it had always been: a real man's name that (just like "H L Matile" in its time) was protected as an exclusive Mathey Bros. house brand signature. It is only unclear what stake they kept in the factory after 1903—and what rights beyond the US trademark Henry Blank acquired after Fritz Mathez died suddenly in Nov 1917 (the probate lasted until 1923).
Viewing this signature—prior to the Brassus factory actually coming online—as one brand in an existing distribution portfolio is the key to understanding why Matile is mentioned as making Meylan in 1876. (btw, all that info was written & submitted by Mathey Bros.) And, I propose, it is the key for confirming other early Meylan sources.
From Illustrated New York, published late 1888:
You touched on several Meylan stories and relationships that have yet to be fully told. I
will take a stab at one most relevant to the watch in question.
Until December 9th, 1903, there was no C. H. Meylan watch company: there was only L. & A. Mathey and their successor, Mathey Brothers & Mathez (M.B., M. & Co. from 1888, when Meylan became a junior partner). From the beginning, all was done by & for them. The Brassus factory was wholly owned & bankrolled by—and operated for more than a decade under the name of—Mathey Bros., Mathez, & Co.
Even after 1903, "C H Meylan" remained largely what it had always been: a real man's name that (just like "H L Matile" in its time) was protected as an exclusive Mathey Bros. house brand signature. It is only unclear what stake they kept in the factory after 1903—and what rights beyond the US trademark Henry Blank acquired after Fritz Mathez died suddenly in Nov 1917 (the probate lasted until 1923).
Viewing this signature—prior to the Brassus factory actually coming online—as one brand in an existing distribution portfolio is the key to understanding why Matile is mentioned as making Meylan in 1876. (btw, all that info was written & submitted by Mathey Bros.) And, I propose, it is the key for confirming other early Meylan sources.
From Illustrated New York, published late 1888:
For the watch in question, we can be certain it was finished at the M.B., M. & Co. factory in 1893.
Your post induced me to finish an article about Meylan. As you rightly mentioned, his story has yet to be fully told. His story, as well as the stories of his employers, Nicole, and later Piguet, have never been published to the best of my knowledge. My paper will be in our Bulletin in a few months.
I will answer your hypotheses in your text for clarification.
Until December 9th, 1903, there was no C. H. Meylan watch company: there was only L. & A. Mathey and their successor, Mathey Brothers & Mathez (M.B., M. & Co. from 1888, when Meylan became a junior partner). From the beginning, all was done by & for them. The Brassus factory was wholly owned & bankrolled by—and operated for more than a decade under the name of—Mathey Bros., Mathez, & Co.
From 1888 there was the Charles Henri Meylan Company in Brassus. MB&B might have or might not have had shares, but the company was Meylan's. As such, it was registered there.
This title of Meylan's first patent only proves that Meylan found a sucker to compensate him for the rights to a worthless infringement of his first employer's patent of 1862. Nothing else.
Meylan's 1873 and Nicole's 1862 patents
Even after 1903, "C H Meylan" remained largely what it had always been: a real man's name that (just like "H L Matile" in its time) was protected as an exclusive Mathey Bros. house brand signature. It is only unclear what stake they kept in the factory after 1903—and what rights beyond the US trademark Henry Blank acquired after Fritz Mathez died suddenly in Nov 1917 (the probate lasted until 1923).
From 1888 through 1903 and until 1916, the Brassus company was Ch.-H. Meylan's
Viewing this signature—prior to the Brassus factory actually coming online—as one brand in an existing distribution portfolio is the key to understanding why Matile is mentioned as making Meylan in 1876. (btw, all that info was written & submitted by Mathey Bros.) And, I propose, it is the key for confirming other early Meylan sources.
Please explain when the Brassus factory was coming online? Could you provide sources for that?
The trademark was reapplied about 10-15 years ago by a person of the same name. I wondered if it was C.H. Meylan's descendant.
The trademark application you showed us was for the "C.H.Meylan" name that we see on many watches. It was applied for by a sole agent for Meylan's watches finished in Brassus. After all, meylan was a partner in the company since 1888. Such registration was a tool for ensuring that the vendor would not grant rights to its products to other companies, and that other companies would not fake such signatures. It did not imply any rights to the ownership of the manufacturing entity.
There are other examples of horological trademarks where an American importer registered a name of an actual Swiss maker.
From Illustrated New York, published late 1888:
Messrs. Mathey Bros., Mathez & Co. import extensively from the most celebrated European houses all kinds of gold and silver watches, both plain and complicated, ladies' and gentlemen's split seconds, chronographs, and repeaters. They are sole agents in the United States for the noted houses of H. L. Matile, J. J. Badollet & Co., and C. H. Meylan, junior member of the firm.
The key word is AGENT. If we follow your hypothesis, we would have to conclude that MBMCo was also the owner of Matile and Badollet. The dissolution papers of Badollet do not list them though.
For the watch in question, we can be certain it was finished at the M.B., M. & Co. factory in 1893.
Wow! Please provide the logic behind such precise dating.
Regardless that I must disagree with most of your hypotheses, I appreciate your research and enthusiasm, which led me to finish my Meylan paper.
Philip Poniz
I will answer your hypotheses in your text for clarification.
Until December 9th, 1903, there was no C. H. Meylan watch company: there was only L. & A. Mathey and their successor, Mathey Brothers & Mathez (M.B., M. & Co. from 1888, when Meylan became a junior partner). From the beginning, all was done by & for them. The Brassus factory was wholly owned & bankrolled by—and operated for more than a decade under the name of—Mathey Bros., Mathez, & Co.
From 1888 there was the Charles Henri Meylan Company in Brassus. MB&B might have or might not have had shares, but the company was Meylan's. As such, it was registered there.
This title of Meylan's first patent only proves that Meylan found a sucker to compensate him for the rights to a worthless infringement of his first employer's patent of 1862. Nothing else.
Meylan's 1873 and Nicole's 1862 patents
Even after 1903, "C H Meylan" remained largely what it had always been: a real man's name that (just like "H L Matile" in its time) was protected as an exclusive Mathey Bros. house brand signature. It is only unclear what stake they kept in the factory after 1903—and what rights beyond the US trademark Henry Blank acquired after Fritz Mathez died suddenly in Nov 1917 (the probate lasted until 1923).
From 1888 through 1903 and until 1916, the Brassus company was Ch.-H. Meylan's
Viewing this signature—prior to the Brassus factory actually coming online—as one brand in an existing distribution portfolio is the key to understanding why Matile is mentioned as making Meylan in 1876. (btw, all that info was written & submitted by Mathey Bros.) And, I propose, it is the key for confirming other early Meylan sources.
Please explain when the Brassus factory was coming online? Could you provide sources for that?
The trademark was reapplied about 10-15 years ago by a person of the same name. I wondered if it was C.H. Meylan's descendant.
The trademark application you showed us was for the "C.H.Meylan" name that we see on many watches. It was applied for by a sole agent for Meylan's watches finished in Brassus. After all, meylan was a partner in the company since 1888. Such registration was a tool for ensuring that the vendor would not grant rights to its products to other companies, and that other companies would not fake such signatures. It did not imply any rights to the ownership of the manufacturing entity.
There are other examples of horological trademarks where an American importer registered a name of an actual Swiss maker.
From Illustrated New York, published late 1888:
Messrs. Mathey Bros., Mathez & Co. import extensively from the most celebrated European houses all kinds of gold and silver watches, both plain and complicated, ladies' and gentlemen's split seconds, chronographs, and repeaters. They are sole agents in the United States for the noted houses of H. L. Matile, J. J. Badollet & Co., and C. H. Meylan, junior member of the firm.
The key word is AGENT. If we follow your hypothesis, we would have to conclude that MBMCo was also the owner of Matile and Badollet. The dissolution papers of Badollet do not list them though.
For the watch in question, we can be certain it was finished at the M.B., M. & Co. factory in 1893.
Wow! Please provide the logic behind such precise dating.
Regardless that I must disagree with most of your hypotheses, I appreciate your research and enthusiasm, which led me to finish my Meylan paper.
Philip Poniz
mosesgodfrey
NAWCC Member
- Aug 30, 2017
- 686
- 583
- 93
- Country
-
- Region
-
Glad my post produced some value, even if only as a catalyst! Thanks just the same for responding in detail. Got it—you disagree and have questions, which will require some writing.
Excuse a repeat question in lieu of a more thorough reply here, but what of the PPCo pieces you mentioned? Do they figure in your article, or is that something on which you may elaborate?
Excuse a repeat question in lieu of a more thorough reply here, but what of the PPCo pieces you mentioned? Do they figure in your article, or is that something on which you may elaborate?
Ethan Lipsig
Gold Member
This is a wonderful thread. Philip and MosesGodfrey, I am once again in awe of your erudition. Although I recently stopped updating the C.H. Meylan database I had been maintaining, linked to below, I will update it to include a link to this thread and by referring to some of the points made in it.
VinSer
NAWCC Member
- Jun 15, 2021
- 199
- 291
- 63
- Country
-
Good night Philip Poniz ,
a pleasure to hear from you again
Then a couple of points/questions ... just to make your life "easier" ...
(a) patent protection is national: so unless Nicole had a patent in the US, Meylan did not infringe. Copy yes, infringe not.
(b) Meylan was quite active as patentee: I found US151899 (1874), US202041 (1878), US235794 (1880), US383749 (1888), US390501 (1888), US410327 (1889). According to his own declaration from 1874 to 1888 he was resident in New York, only in 1889 he moved to Brassus, Switzerland.
(c) according to the FOSC of 31 May 1895 (see below), on 1 May 1889 (i.e. as soon as he moved to Switzerland if the patents are to be believed) Meylan toghether with the brothers Mathey and Mathez, founded the Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie.
(d) I could not find in the Davoine/ a firm/watch worker called Charles-Henry Meylan in Brassus, but from 1891 onwards there is a fabrique d'horlogerie called Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie (also below).
(e) Between 1880 and 1886, in the "indicateur des montagnes" there is a Charles-Henri Meylan active in making chronographes, but he is in Sentier - l'Orient-de-l'Orbe (not Brassus). By 1889 this Charles-Henri is a greffier at the tribunal of l'Orient-de-l'Orbe. So not the same person as Charles-Henry Meylan from New-York.
I apologise but not everything above appears to me to square with your replies to mosesgodfrey .
I am sure your article will clarify everything, just making sure
Ciao
a pleasure to hear from you again
Then a couple of points/questions ... just to make your life "easier" ...
(a) patent protection is national: so unless Nicole had a patent in the US, Meylan did not infringe. Copy yes, infringe not.
(b) Meylan was quite active as patentee: I found US151899 (1874), US202041 (1878), US235794 (1880), US383749 (1888), US390501 (1888), US410327 (1889). According to his own declaration from 1874 to 1888 he was resident in New York, only in 1889 he moved to Brassus, Switzerland.
(c) according to the FOSC of 31 May 1895 (see below), on 1 May 1889 (i.e. as soon as he moved to Switzerland if the patents are to be believed) Meylan toghether with the brothers Mathey and Mathez, founded the Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie.
(d) I could not find in the Davoine/ a firm/watch worker called Charles-Henry Meylan in Brassus, but from 1891 onwards there is a fabrique d'horlogerie called Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie (also below).
(e) Between 1880 and 1886, in the "indicateur des montagnes" there is a Charles-Henri Meylan active in making chronographes, but he is in Sentier - l'Orient-de-l'Orbe (not Brassus). By 1889 this Charles-Henri is a greffier at the tribunal of l'Orient-de-l'Orbe. So not the same person as Charles-Henry Meylan from New-York.
I apologise but not everything above appears to me to square with your replies to mosesgodfrey .
I am sure your article will clarify everything, just making sure
Ciao
VinSer
NAWCC Member
- Jun 15, 2021
- 199
- 291
- 63
- Country
-
As usual I am not an expert in Charles H. Meylan, but got curious. So just sharing the documents I found.
The first set is from the Jewelers Circular (dates in the name of the file), the second is a PDF with the crocodile for Charles Henri Meylan published in 1916 by the Journal Suisse d'Horlogerie.
Both agree with the fact that Charles H Meylan was in the USA (from 1871) until 1888 (April for being precise ) when he went back to Switzerland to open a new fabrique.
Only the Jewelers Circular indicates that the property was of Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Co (Meylan was the director of the fabric), the Journal Suisse that it was form Charles H Meylan.
Personally given the previous entry of the FOSC, I tend to agree with the Jewelers Circular.
In 1903 then Charles H. Meylan created the C. H. Meylan Watch Co, that became the owner of the Brassus fabric. Exactly when is a good question since Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie disappeared only in 1908.
Ciao
The first set is from the Jewelers Circular (dates in the name of the file), the second is a PDF with the crocodile for Charles Henri Meylan published in 1916 by the Journal Suisse d'Horlogerie.
Both agree with the fact that Charles H Meylan was in the USA (from 1871) until 1888 (April for being precise
) when he went back to Switzerland to open a new fabrique.Only the Jewelers Circular indicates that the property was of Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Co (Meylan was the director of the fabric), the Journal Suisse that it was form Charles H Meylan.
Personally given the previous entry of the FOSC, I tend to agree with the Jewelers Circular.
In 1903 then Charles H. Meylan created the C. H. Meylan Watch Co, that became the owner of the Brassus fabric. Exactly when is a good question since Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie disappeared only in 1908.
Ciao
VinSer
NAWCC Member
- Jun 15, 2021
- 199
- 291
- 63
- Country
-
One last detail ... yes I am really good at procrastinating other stuff like washing dishes ...
It is true that the trademark "C. H. Meylan" was registered both in the USA and Switzerland. However the one in the USA was registered in 1907, while the one in Switzerland only in February 1917 (see below as usual).
The one in the USA was registered by Mathey Bros., Mathez & Co. after the fee for registration was reduced from 25 USD to 10 USD in 1905.
The one in Switzerland was registered after the death of Meylan and the consequent dissolution of Mathey Bros., Mathez & Co. in January 1917 (see extract from the Jewelers' Circular below).
Probably all well known, but better sure ...
Ciao
It is true that the trademark "C. H. Meylan" was registered both in the USA and Switzerland. However the one in the USA was registered in 1907, while the one in Switzerland only in February 1917 (see below as usual
).The one in the USA was registered by Mathey Bros., Mathez & Co. after the fee for registration was reduced from 25 USD to 10 USD in 1905.
The one in Switzerland was registered after the death of Meylan and the consequent dissolution of Mathey Bros., Mathez & Co. in January 1917 (see extract from the Jewelers' Circular below).
Probably all well known, but better sure ...
Ciao
mosesgodfrey
NAWCC Member
- Aug 30, 2017
- 686
- 583
- 93
- Country
-
- Region
-
Hi VinSer — thank you for sharing these. You have happily preempted me & succinctly done what would’ve taken me quite a bit of writing! I also have to add that you are a better & deeper researcher than I with the trademarks—the first claimed use from 1907 filing is both new & informative for me. Many thanks!
Let me point out two important facts from these documents that can easily be missed:
These facts support that this voyage was the one to select the Brassus factory site & commence its acquisition & setup. I will go further & say, I speculate Meylan’s agreement to set up & oversee the factory was the firm’s main proviso in the contract for Meylan to be made a junior partner.
It officially opened for business in May 1889, as you have found. However, some Meylan improvements already patented in 1887 would take a few more years to acquire custom tooling and put into mass production.
For now, let me simplify & restate some premises from my original post. I welcome any and all to refute them with facts.
It is also possible to date with some precision Meylan serial numbers after Brassus came online. I am happy to submit my work there for review, if there’s serious interest. I am content to be dismissed out of hand, but I would be happier to have someone consider the facts/methodology. It is not important to me to be “right”—I’m destined to be wrong/inaccurate to some degree—but I would be interested in getting closer to the truth.
Let me point out two important facts from these documents that can easily be missed:
- Meylan’s sailing for Brassus happened immediately after the meeting in which he is made a junior partner in the firm.
- Note the name immediately preceding Meylan’s in the sailing entry: one of the Mathey Brothers (Auguste-Simon) sailed with him. Only Auguste came back.
These facts support that this voyage was the one to select the Brassus factory site & commence its acquisition & setup. I will go further & say, I speculate Meylan’s agreement to set up & oversee the factory was the firm’s main proviso in the contract for Meylan to be made a junior partner.
It officially opened for business in May 1889, as you have found. However, some Meylan improvements already patented in 1887 would take a few more years to acquire custom tooling and put into mass production.
For now, let me simplify & restate some premises from my original post. I welcome any and all to refute them with facts.
- There was no dedicated factory for Meylan watches before 1888
- This factory came online to start producing/shipping finished movements in May 1889
- No Brassus factory was in Meylan’s name until 1903
It is also possible to date with some precision Meylan serial numbers after Brassus came online. I am happy to submit my work there for review, if there’s serious interest. I am content to be dismissed out of hand, but I would be happier to have someone consider the facts/methodology. It is not important to me to be “right”—I’m destined to be wrong/inaccurate to some degree—but I would be interested in getting closer to the truth.
Last edited:
Good to hear from you VinSer!Good night Philip Poniz ,
a pleasure to hear from you again
Then a couple of points/questions ... just to make your life "easier" ...
(a) patent protection is national: so unless Nicole had a patent in the US, Meylan did not infringe. Copy yes, infringe not.
(b) Meylan was quite active as patentee: I found US151899 (1874), US202041 (1878), US235794 (1880), US383749 (1888), US390501 (1888), US410327 (1889). According to his own declaration from 1874 to 1888 he was resident in New York, only in 1889 he moved to Brassus, Switzerland.
(c) according to the FOSC of 31 May 1895 (see below), on 1 May 1889 (i.e. as soon as he moved to Switzerland if the patents are to be believed) Meylan toghether with the brothers Mathey and Mathez, founded the Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie.
(d) I could not find in the Davoine/ a firm/watch worker called Charles-Henry Meylan in Brassus, but from 1891 onwards there is a fabrique d'horlogerie called Mathey Brothers, Mathez & Cie (also below).
(e) Between 1880 and 1886, in the "indicateur des montagnes" there is a Charles-Henri Meylan active in making chronographes, but he is in Sentier - l'Orient-de-l'Orbe (not Brassus). By 1889 this Charles-Henri is a greffier at the tribunal of l'Orient-de-l'Orbe. So not the same person as Charles-Henry Meylan from New-York.
I apologise but not everything above appears to me to square with your replies to mosesgodfrey .
I am sure your article will clarify everything, just making sure
Ciao
View attachment 764095
View attachment 764105
In Meylan's eulogy (which you also included) there are two passages;
Returning to Switzerland in 1888 with a lot of experience and bearing important commissions in repeating watches, he settled in Le Brassus to establish a watch factory there, bringing all his energy and working power to create a lasting work. The beginnings were difficult, but little by little, under the power of his will, his products made a place for themselves in the United States.
and
In 1903, he transformed his business into a joint-stock company (société par action), under the name "The G.-H. Meylan Watch Co". [my emphasis]
The above implies that the company was Meylan's from the beginning. I asked a friend in the Vallee de Joux to confirm the above in Le Brassus. He just responded. He claims nothing is there and thinks Meylan's archives are in Lausanne. I will be in England in September and was thinking of going to Geneva for a few days, and will also try to go to Lausanne, which is close. I will post after my return.
For those who do not know, VinSer is a professional patent expert. On top of it, he is passionate about horology. We met online a few years ago when he spotted technical inaccuracy when I used the word "protected" instead of "recorded" in a story involving a French patent in one of my articles in the French Horlogerie Ancienne. If he says the "infringed" should be substituted by "copied," I will not argue.
Regarding working in a group to solve a problem, it is an excellent idea. I was thinking about it while working with VinSer on a mysterious wrist repeater by Gruen. The idea was to solve the origin of the ebauche and publish it in W&C Bulletin with the authorship of all the contributing participants. I will post the problem soon.
Know Your NAWCC Forums Rules!
RULES & GUIDELINES
RULES & GUIDELINES
Staff online
-
Dave CoatsworthSenior Administrator
Forum statistics
- Threads
- 183,900
- Members
- 55,936
- Latest member
- juanmasubbie
- Encyclopedia Pages
- 918
- Total wiki contributions
- 3,190
- Last edit
- Watch case by Kent